People v. Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 854 (1987)
To preserve a Rosario claim for appellate review, the prosecutor must specify any objections to furnishing requested materials at trial; otherwise, the issue is not preserved, and the court will not reach the merits of the Rosario claim.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse of his 11-year-old daughter. At trial, the defense sought to confront the complainant with statements she made to a social worker from the Bureau of Child Welfare (BCW), arguing these were prior statements relevant to her testimony. The prosecutor objected, citing privilege and the Family Court Act, and stated he possessed nothing relevant from BCW. The trial court sustained the objection. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the prosecutor failed to adequately preserve objections to the defense’s Rosario claim because he didn’t specify his objections at trial, preventing the trial court from considering the matter and the defense from creating a proper record.
Facts
Defendant was accused by his 11-year-old daughter of rape and sexual abuse over several years.
Defendant argued the accusations were fabricated by the child’s mother (from whom he was separated) to gain custody of their children.
Defense counsel sought to cross-examine the daughter with prior statements made to a BCW social worker.
The prosecutor claimed the statements were privileged and protected by the Family Court Act and asserted he had no relevant BCW material.
The trial court denied the defense’s request for the statements.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the defendant of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecutor adequately preserved objections to the defense’s request for the complainant’s prior statements to a social worker under the Rosario rule.
Holding
No, because the prosecutor failed to specify his objections to furnishing the requested materials at trial, he did not preserve these arguments for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the prosecutor’s obligation to turn over a witness’s prior statements relating to the subject matter of their testimony, as established in People v. Rosario.
The Court found that the prosecutor’s general reference to privilege and the Family Court Act was insufficient to invoke CPLR 4508, which governs social worker-client privilege. The court cited Matter of Grattan v. People to support this point.
The prosecutor’s claim of possessing nothing relevant from BCW was deemed insufficient to argue on appeal that Rosario material doesn’t include statements in BCW custody.
The Court stressed that the prosecutor’s failure to raise specific objections at trial deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to consider the issues and prevented the defense from creating a proper record. This record could have clarified the relationship between the People and BCW, the prosecutor’s access to BCW records, and who could assert or waive privilege under CPLR 4508, citing People v. Nieves and People v. Tutt.
Because the Court did not reach the merits of the Rosario claim, it explicitly stated that it was not ruling on the availability of any of the requested materials. This leaves open questions about when the Rosario rule applies to materials held by outside agencies.
The Court emphasized the importance of proper objections to allow the trial court to make informed decisions and to create a clear record for appeal. This case acts as a reminder to prosecutors that all objections to Rosario requests must be clearly laid out at trial.